“As I understand it, Atheists say God does not exist because we cannot prove He does. Nice try, but you cannot prove he doesn’t (logical strike 1).”

In case you didn’t know, the vast majority of atheists do not claim to know there is no god, just that there is no good reason to suppose there is one. I don’t believe in god the same way I don’t believe in unicorns. I don’t claim to have proven their non-existence, I just have no good reason to suppose they ever existed. What you are attacking is positive atheism, a position almost no atheists hold. So it is not a strike against atheists or me, it is a strawman.

“Atheists claim they base their beliefs in “fact” and not faith, but – as I just pointed out – not being able to ‘prove’ God does not exist means you have to assume he doesn’t ON FAITH. That is true by definition (Logical strike 2).”

Again, a position I do not take, nor do basically any atheists I have ever met. This would be like me saying that christianity is false because genetic testing proves native americans are not a lost tribe of israel as one branch of christianity (mormonism) maintains. While this certainly discredits the book of mormon this belief is hardly universal among christians and for me to portray it as such in an attempt to claim to have disproved all of christianity would be either ignorant or dishonest.

I’m going to hope for ignorant, but I’ve seen plenty of dishonest in my time, so your response will reveal which it is.

“Atheists say that they base their FAITH in materialism: a belief in what is and not what cannot be seen or proven (they like to call this the supernatural). Here’s where the Atheist actually proves he does not understand the foundation of his argument.”

The materialist position is that matter/energy is either a) all that exists or b) all that matters since it is all that can empirically be known. A materialist doesn’t deny the possibility that non-material things may exist, just their importance. Nowhere does faith enter into it.

“–Once upon a time, many things were considered ‘super natural,’ such as comets, shooting stars, etc. But, as we grew in our understanding of things, we came to understand what these phenomenon are and how they function – thus removing them from the realm of ‘super natural.’ In other words, they were natural occurrences all along, man just did not understand it at that time.”

I agree completely. Isn’t it possible that what you call supernatural is also the parts of nature you simply do not understand? If god really does say cure sick people in the hospital for instance, isn’t that assumed because doctors don’t understand how they got better? Isn’t it very likely we are just doing the same thing our ancestors did? Bear in mind also that many of those natural things are considered supernatural in scripture, even the star of bethlehem may have been a comet. Eclipses, “blood moons”, morning stars, illness, clouds, lightning, thunder, earth quakes, drought, floods and many other things are given a mystical basis in scripture. All are natural phenomenon we now understand.

“Well, we now know that this universe has at least 8 and possibly 9 dimensions (physicists have established this as a necessity). As beings confined to the 4 dimensions we can perceive and manipulate (length, width, height and time), it is impossible for us to conceive of our work with these other dimensions in anything but the abstract (at least, at this time this is true). Still, we have established that these other dimensions must exist.”

I don’t believe scientists have “proven” that these extra dimensions exist, and dimensions themselves are abstract human concepts, a way to describe the world mathematically. They don’t actually exist any more than inches or miles do, they are imaginary.

“Now, does this mean that they are ‘supernatural,’ or just that we do not understand them fully as of this time in human history? What if the dimensions we live in are just a part of our true nature – a part of what we call a life? What if, when we die here, we continue in these other dimensions? IF this is the case, then this ‘poo-pooing’ of life-after-death is nothing more than a denial of what is asserted in the same manner as a priest who seeks to pervert faith so he can manipulate the people through religion. The same goes for the notion of Heaven and Hell: they could be real dimensions.”

“If” is the basis of all fiction. Anything would be true “if” it were true. Yes, that would all be fascinating if it were real. If there were another dimension where peter pan lived in never-never land that would be equally fascinating. I am not hostile to what you are saying or closed-minded to it. I don’t not want there to be an afterlife any more than I don’t want there to be a never-never land. I just honestly have no reason to think there is one.

“How about ghosts? They are dismissed by most Atheists, yet we have recordings of their existence from the beginning of known time.”

Everyone I know knows someone who claims to have seen, heard or otherwise experienced a ghost, sightings are about as common as fender benders. The reason I doubt the validity of these claims and think they’re far more likely to be just peoples’ minds playing tricks on them, hallucinations, delusions, optical illusions etc (all of which we know for a fact are real) is because in all those hundreds of millions of ghost sightings, not one has ever been caught on a camera phone or a security camera. Search youtube for “fender bender” or “car crash” and you will find thousands of crystal clear, high definition videos of them. Search for “ghost” and you’ll find a bunch of out of focus lens flair nonsense or anonymous fakes. If ghost sightings happened as commonly as people claim every convenience store in america should have them on tape, ghosts should occasionally wander onto the field during sporting events or walk behind the president during his speeches etc. There are numerous videos of people being attacked by sharks, though this only happens a few dozen times a year worldwide.

“This would suggest there is a real phenomenon in play here, and the additional dimensions we now know exist can easily account for this.”

About as “easily” as we can account for peter pan.

“The same goes for Biblical recordings of the sun disappearing or stopping in the sky. If there is a 4th spacial dimension, and some entity knows how to manipulate it so it can interface with the dimensions we perceive, this would be a simple matter to stop or ‘disappear’ the sun. And ALL of this would be as natural as gravity – we just don’t understand it.”

If the sun disappeared the earth would go flying into space, and the sun appearing to stop would mean the earth’s spin actually suddenly stopped, which would mean the spin of the earth went from over a thousand miles per hour to nothing. That would be the equivalent of everyone and everything on the earth being in a 1,100 mile an hour car crash. So no, that never happened. If it had there would be no one left to report it.

“And then there’s that: gravity. For all the things Atheists like to claim science has ‘proven,’ it has – in FACT – proven very little. We can’t even explain gravity, only describe how we ‘think’ it works. Then there’s light: how is it that it can be both energy and matter at the same time? Science misses out there, too.”

This is another strawman, who is claiming science has all the answers? Science is an ongoing process. You’re just attacking foolish ideas no one (least of all me) are actually putting forth. And what does any of this have to do with my blog?

“And the same applies to evolution. The THEORY of evolution is just that: a THEORY – and a flawed one at that. yet many have convinced themselves it is real.”

The theory of evolution attempts to explain the fact of evolution. How and why life evolves is always up for revision, but that it evolves is no less speculative than that gravity pulls things toward the earth.

“Well, with respect to Dawkins, he has NOT ‘defended the THEORY of evolution,” he has begged the question by using the objection of irreducibility in explaining his thoughts on how life began. That is a logical fallacy. One cannot do that and claim credibility.”

I have no idea what you’re talking about, and even if I did what does it have to do with anything in this blog?

“So on the assertion that the Atheist deals with “what is,” that is logical strike three – and the fatal strike. It is too easily shown that what we ASSUME “is” may – in FACT – not be ALL there is, only what we THINK we understand.”

Again, not something most atheists claim to know. Evangelists often portray atheists as thinking this way though. It may benefit you to get to know atheists rather than learning about them (as I assume you have) via evangelical materials which misrepresent them.

“Now, for the affirmative argument. Why NOT God?”

Why not vishnu? I’m trying to find truth here, not justify a particular religion to myself.

“Because you can’t see or prove Him? HA! Then how could faith exist?”

Why should it exist? It’s been made into a virtue but by that logic isn’t it virtuous to believe in Allah? There’s just as little evidence for his existence. Or valhalla or unicorns or a million other things which must be take on faith. What would be the point?

I want to understand reality as it is, believing in things for which there is no evidence seems impractical and counter-productive to say the least.

“One does not have faith in something one KNOWS to exist. So, if God made the world so his existence was undeniable, what faith could there be, and then how could we truly love Him? We couldn’t.”

So you have to not know something exists in order to love it? So the apostles didn’t love jesus? And you can’t love your family, spouse, children etc? By that logic I can love an elf more than I can love a beautiful woman. I just simply reject that claim.

“Second, where did this world come from if there is no Creator?”

Don’t know. Where did lightning come from if not zeus?

The logic of “we don’t know how the universe began therefore we know how the universe began” is problematic to say the least.

“I have read Hawking’s attempts to explain this and he – as well as his contemporaries – have built their explanations on fallacious arguments. In Hawking’s case, he uses imaginary math to achieve his notion of a self-generating universe. And even at that, he pre-supposes an existing energy field.”

“The flaws here are A – when you put REAL numbers back in his equations, you come back to the “Big bang” and the necessity for a creator”

Not understanding something does not logically necessitate a creator. And even if it did it wouldn’t necessitate that it be the god of the bible or any other doctrine.

“and B – Hawkings doesn’t seem to understand that TRUE nature of NOTHING! That means NO ENERGY FIELD! Which brings us back to “How does one get something from Nothing?”

I don’t know. How do you get a creator from nothing?

“Then we have SCIENCE: that’s right, SCIENCE says this universe is too perfectly balanced to have just happened.”

So evolution is bullshit and science doesn’t know everything… unless a scientist says there must be a god, in which case we’ve got it all figured out? You can’t shit on science one minute and invoke it as an all-knowing authority the next. Both, are of course, invalid.

“The statistical possibility of 0 is 1*10 to the 50th power.”

One, probability*. And 2, it is impossible to evaluate the probability of something occurring unless you understand well the dynamics of it’s occurrence, which we don’t. So any claim about the statistical odds of the universe turning out a certain way is by definition hogwash.

“There are some 322 known universal constants that must be perfectly balanced for life to exist as we know it.”

Two problems with this – one is that there are 26 perceived constants in nature, not 322. The second is that there’s no reason for life as we know it to exist unless the universe exists as we know it. If there had been more anti-matter in the universe than matter then all of the matter would’ve been destroyed there would probably be life made of anti-matter instead. It’s like arguing that life as we know it couldn’t exist without an oxygen rich environment. If there hadn’t been an oxygen rich environment there would simply be other forms of life (and there were, oxygen arose as a byproduct of early life). Life adapts to the environment, there is no magical conditions needed for “life” since there is no one kind of life. The conditions one form of life needs will kill another form of life. And just as life began in the ocean and adapted to land, then adapted to colder climates etc and became more specialized and dependent on those environments as it went, the same thing could happen in a universe with another configuration. A universe that was fundamentally different wouldn’t have mammals but this doesn’t matter any more than the fact that a planet without an ocean wouldn’t have sharks.

“The statistical chances of this are 1*10 to the 322nd power.”

A few problems with this – one, why would the odds of 322 things being true be 1 in 10 to the 322nd power? That sounds like lazy/bad math. Second, mathematical impossibility does not mean actual impossibility. The odds of every grain of sand being exactly where it is in the universe at this moment exceeds the figure you just gave by a staggering amount. Does that mean it’s not true? Mathematically unlikely things happen all the time. Move every grain of sand and you’ve just made another mathematically “impossible” thing happen. Walking across a beach can be considered an “impossible” act from a mathematical perspective. Thus the expression that there are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics. The statistic is irrelevant, the logic behind the statistic is what is valid or invalid. And third, in order to evaluate the odds of 10 things being true we would need to know what the odds of each of them being true is – we don’t know the odds of the various perceived “constants” being the way they are, so this is baloney.

“Want to do the math and tell me how many times GREATER than statistical 0 that is? Then we can talk about the implications of DNA (or the Encyclopedia Britannica in a molecule).”

Or walking across a beach. Anything complex is improbable, doesn’t mean it isn’t real. The reason walking across a beach and displacing each grain of sand and each atom in precisely a particular way (while mind-staggeringly unlikely) does not indicate that it didn’t happen is because no matter what happens it will be equally unlikely. Buy a lottery ticket – the odds of you getting the exact right sequence of numbers and winning the big jackpot are something like one in 170 million. But the odds of you getting the exact sequence of numbers on any losing ticket are identical. You win the lottery and beat the odds every time, no matter what numbers you get. This is also true of existence. Even if the odds of the universe being as it is were as unlikely as you claim, it would be true in any universe.

“Finally, I hear Atheists tell me there is no proof of the Super Natural in history. Oh, but there is! You need to look up Thallus, Tertullian and Phlegon. They were the scientists and historians of their time and they all record a great, GLOBAL phenomenon in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e. 33 AD) at the 6th hour. They record that the sky went black, the stars came out and the earth shook violently. These men were spread out across the Mediterranean basin and they ALL said this phenomenon happened GLOBALLY (i.e. throughout the known world). Guess what? This substantiates the Biblical account of what happened when Christ died on the cross TO A “T!” So there IS evidence that the Bible is real and God exists, but the Atheist chooses to reject it.”

It sounds like an ordinary eclipse. And none of them were alive when it supposedly happened. This you consider proof? But you reject evolution? Your standards of evidence for one kind of claim are extremely low and your standards of evidence for another are extremely high. There’s no other word for this than bias.

“THIS is why I say Atheists have more faith than those who believe in God: because they must have it to reject everything we know that supports Him and still believe He doesn’t exist.”

So you know god exists? By your own logic this defeats the purpose of his existence and makes it impossible for you to love him? You can’t have it both ways.

“This is why I get such a chuckle from Atheists: they simply do not understand the “reason” they cite as support for their belief system.”

You’ve given nothing but strawman statements, none of which I would ever state or have ever stated on any blog (you can google search my site if you like).

17 Responses to Discussion With A Somewhat Pissy Creationist.

Whoever this moron creationist is, I would simply tell them to watch the BBC. There, he can see video evidence that the Big Bang was caused by an exploding TARDIS.Is that ridiculous fantasy? Indeed it is. Yet it’s just as if not more plausible than what the Bible states.Who knows; maybe he’ll get lucky and an actual science program will come on (though I doubt he’d learn anything from it.)Fantastic job pulling apart his rhetoric and exposing just how poorly conceived his argument is.

For the record, do not like title. Otherwise your responses were stellar. I really liked how civil discourse was. No “strikes”. Lol””If” is the basis of all fiction. Anything would be true “if” it were true. Yes, that would all be fascinating if it were real. If there were another dimension where peter pan lived in never-never land that would be equally fascinating. I am not hostile to what you are saying or closed-minded to it. I don’t not want there to be an afterlife any more than I don’t want there to be a never-never land. I just honestly have no reason to think there is one.”Haha “”If” is the basis of all fiction. Anything would be true “if” it were true. Yes, that would all be fascinating if it were real. If there were another dimension where peter pan lived in never-never land that would be equally fascinating. I am not hostile to what you are saying or closed-minded to it. I don’t not want there to be an afterlife any more than I don’t want there to be a never-never land. I just honestly have no reason to think there is one.”Of course you know I believe, but this was very well said, cordial. Nice job.

It’s like this person read a “talking points memo” on how to deal with atheists. They learned the key words and are trying to BS their way through a thesis (I did this all the time in my Analytical Chem course, and my prof saw through it just like you did).A few minor points: M-theory string theorists believe there are 11 dimensions. You were absolutely right on the number of constants in the universe, though.Also according to M-theory, when you have 11 dimensions you have the components that can create the Big Bang (and our standard 4 dimensions) BEFORE the Big Bang. It’s called Brane Theory.Seriously, kudos on your level-headed rebuttal. I’m curious who this is in response to, since it’s not the standard right-wing wackadoos I’m used to here.

Christ, were they actually discussing anything with you or just rattling off jargon-filled tautologies in a vain attempt to make themselves sound smart? I can’t see a single point you make addressed or a single counter-argument rebutted. He/she just seems to be reading from a script… which is more or less what GL just said.

” I don’t believe in god the same way I don’t believe in unicorns. ” That is exactly the problem. Belief in unicorns and belief in God are not on the same epistemic grounds. “The materialist position is that matter/energy is either a) all that exists or b) all that matters since it is all that can empirically be known. A materialist doesn’t deny the possibility that non-material things may exist, just their importance. Nowhere does faith enter into it.”Actually, materialism is exactly a)“All are natural phenomenon we now understand.”I’m not sure about “ALL”….there are miracles in the Bible which can be explained naturally…but many which cannot. (ie many of the miracles of Jesus)“I don’t believe scientists have “proven” that these extra dimensions exist, and dimensions themselves are abstract human concepts, a way to describe the world mathematically. They don’t actually exist any more than inches or miles do, they are imaginary.”Its true the extra dimensions are not proven to exist and they describe the world mathematically. However, they aren’t necessarily abstract concepts nor do we know that they are in actuality imaginary. (A lot of physicists wouldn’t dedicate their entire working lives into proving something that they know must be imaginary). Keep in mind, in the history of physics…often, reality has eventually followed the math. (Not saying extra dimensions are true or not true…but the possibility of being true is very real.)“About as “easily” as we can account for peter pan.“Again, unicorns, ghosts, and Peter Pan are not on the same epistemic grounds as God.Also, I don’t merely not believe in unicorns and ghosts and Peter Pan…I actually positively believe that they do not exist. Why? Because I have good reason to believe they do not exist….not just a lack of evidence that they do.“That would be the equivalent of everyone and everything on the earth being in a 1,100 mile an hour car crash. So no, that never happened. If it had there would be no one left to report it.”I’m not religious so I’m not trying to defend any miracles per say. But the sun “stopping” in the sky doesn’t mean the earth would have to stop rotating instantaneously. What if the earth earth’s rotation came to a stop over say…a period of 10 minutes. 1,100 mph over 10 minutes is actually a very slow deceleration that would hardly be noticed. “Science is an ongoing process. You’re just attacking foolish ideas no one (least of all me) are actually putting forth. And what does any of this have to do with my blog?”I don’t really see the relevance of the author attacking science as a whole. I agree science never claims to have all the answers…and yet, there is an arrogance in science that it knows a whole lot. Throughout the history of science and physics, there have been times when we thought we pretty much had the entire picture of the world and the universe (in fact in the late 19th century many scientists believed physics was a dying field…because we would soon know everything there is to know about physics)…only to realize later how little we actually knew. So I think the point this person is making isn’t meant to be a strawman, but simply an argument against the pervasive materialism and physicalism that is prevalent in science. (At least, that’s my take on this issue.) “The theory of evolution attempts to explain the fact of evolution. How and why life evolves is always up for revision, but that it evolves is no less speculative than that gravity pulls things toward the earth.”I’m sure someone will point out that a theory in science isn’t a theory as used in its conventional sense. (To which I agree). Even so, evolution is NOT a fact. (I’m still amazed at the use of the word fact when it comes from a scientist who should define facts as observable evidence.). And OF COURSE (macro) evolution is farrrrr more speculative than gravity (which any evolutionist would admit. To say evolutionary theory makes no assumptions is crazy.) I will say, again, I don’t really understand his/her generalized attack on science…after all, the existence of God and evolution are compatible ideas.“Well, with respect to Dawkins, he has NOT ‘defended the THEORY of evolution,” he has begged the question by using the objection of irreducibility in explaining his thoughts on how life began. That is a logical fallacy. One cannot do that and claim credibility.”I have no idea what you’re talking about, and even if I did what does it have to do with anything in this blog?I also have no idea what his/her point is here. But I do share the sentiment of the author that Dawkins is…well….not the smartest (to put it nicely). Out of respect to atheists, I try not to talk about Dawkins (and yet he always comes up again and again) because I don’t think anyone gains from attacking a perspective’s weakest arguments. (Which many atheists do… much like your analogy of attacking one tenet of Mormonism to disprove Christianity. And yet, this is what happens all the time…let me cherry pick the weakest arguments for Christianity and argue against it…and thus I successfully argue against the religion as a whole.)Ok…this post (and comment) is super long. I want to respond to some other parts of the post but its 3:30am. Maybe I’ll respond to the rest later (…maybe…since I really only decided to write this to take my mind off the Laker game tonight.)

@wizexel22 – What if the earth earth’s rotation came to a stop over say…a period of 10 minutes. 1,100 mph over 10 minutes is actually a very slow deceleration that would hardly be noticedIs it sad that I actually want to calculate out what deceleration of Earth would be survivable by humans? *project for this morning*

@Doitean – To be fair there is no shame in ignorance as long as it isn’t willful.@YouToMe – You quoted me twice : P And thanks.@GodlessLiberal – To be fair most christians have probably not gotten to know an atheist. As I said before ignorance is forgivable as long as people don’t cling to it. And yeah even if there were a thousand constants that wouldn’t necessarily mean a thing, both for the statistical reasons I gave above and because as you said x constant may lead to y and z constants. Everything in the universe may be the product of one or two phenomenon, in the same way that all 100+ elements are manifestations of only 2 particles.@jessispeaks@revelife – Good question (and hello). I don’t think accepting that there’s a creator would, in itself, change much. I mean if I believed that not stoning people to death would send me to hell, I still wouldn’t do it. Right is still right and wrong is still wrong. So unless this god was an active part of the world (which I don’t think is the case, even if there is some kind of creator) I don’t think it would really change much of anything. If this creator told us how to cure cancer or gave us wisdom that would change many lives (not just mine). But I don’t see anything like that happening. The “wisdom” people claim to get from god seems like run of the mill intuition and varies tremendously from person to person. But if there were a higher intelligence with say an email address you could send questions to, that would be very interesting.@musterion99 – Actually I usually get pissed when someone writes a blog bashing (usually lying about me) by name either behind my back or after blocking me so I can’t defend myself. My policy is usually to either notify the person if their name is in the blog or be lazy and not if their name isn’t in the blog – and if they blocked me I don’t give a shit about them, so yeah. As for tagging people, I’ve never bothered to learn how to do that or tried to do that (lazy).@moss_icon – This was my in-line response to a single comment left on my site, not a back and forth conversation.@Ooglick – I would imagine it would have consequences all the same, screwing up wind and ocean currents, weather patterns etc, totally screwing up the earth’s magnetic field and the lava flows inside the planet responsible for it, probably cause earthquakes and nasty volcanic activity etc. Not to mention that the “sun” stopped according to scripture for I believe it was 3 years (because someone prayed) – this would fry half of the planet and freeze the other half. Best case scenario almost nothing would survive just due to the last bit alone. I didn’t get into this in the comment because I didn’t think I needed to, lol. But good question : )@wizexel22 – “That is exactly the problem. Belief in unicorns and belief in God are not on the same epistemic grounds.”I’m not saying they’re completely comparable, I was explaining the difference between not accepting a claim and pretending to have disproven it.”Actually, materialism is exactly a)”There are different definitions.“I’m not sure about “ALL”….there are miracles in the Bible which can be explained naturally…but many which cannot. (ie many of the miracles of Jesus)”Lies, exaggerations, myths, delusions, hallucinations and fiction all exist within nature. There’s a difference between us not being able to explain something and you liking the potential explanations. Would you say the “miracles” of countless other people can’t be explained naturally either?”Its true the extra dimensions are not proven to exist and they describe the world mathematically. However, they aren’t necessarily abstract concepts nor do we know that they are in actuality imaginary. (A lot of physicists wouldn’t dedicate their entire working lives into proving something that they know must be imaginary). Keep in mind, in the history of physics…often, reality has eventually followed the math. (Not saying extra dimensions are true or not true…but the possibility of being true is very real.)”I know, and as I said I’m open to it. Though to be fair in a sense everything is imaginary : P”Again, unicorns, ghosts, and Peter Pan are not on the same epistemic grounds as God.”You keep saying this but never elaborate.”Also, I don’t merely not believe in unicorns and ghosts and Peter Pan…I actually positively believe that they do not exist. Why? Because I have good reason to believe they do not exist….not just a lack of evidence that they do.”It’s impossible to prove a universal negative. I don’t know how you could possibly have positive evidence.“I’m not religious so I’m not trying to defend any miracles per say. But the sun “stopping” in the sky doesn’t mean the earth would have to stop rotating instantaneously. What if the earth earth’s rotation came to a stop over say…a period of 10 minutes. 1,100 mph over 10 minutes is actually a very slow deceleration that would hardly be noticed.”I replied to this above (thought it was the other guy’s question).“I don’t really see the relevance of the author attacking science as a whole. I agree science never claims to have all the answers…and yet, there is an arrogance in science that it knows a whole lot. Throughout the history of science and physics, there have been times when we thought we pretty much had the entire picture of the world and the universe (in fact in the late 19th century many scientists believed physics was a dying field…because we would soon know everything there is to know about physics)…only to realize later how little we actually knew. So I think the point this person is making isn’t meant to be a strawman, but simply an argument against the pervasive materialism and physicalism that is prevalent in science. (At least, that’s my take on this issue.)”Science deals with phenomenon, until you can point to a supernatural phenomenon that can be observed, experimented on, predicted etc then what alternative is there? Science deals with material things as a matter of principle, not ideology. Because if science books started talking about ghosts and goblins they’d be leaving what is empirically testable and being dishonest.“I’m sure someone will point out that a theory in science isn’t a theory as used in its conventional sense. (To which I agree). Even so, evolution is NOT a fact.” That species change over time isn’t a fact?”(I’m still amazed at the use of the word fact when it comes from a scientist who should define facts as observable evidence.). And OF COURSE (macro) evolution is farrrrr more speculative than gravity (which any evolutionist would admit. To say evolutionary theory makes no assumptions is crazy.)” Um, no. Macro evolution has been observed in nature and in the laboratory many times (google “observed instances of speciation”) and there are shit tons of testable evidence and experimental predictions in support of common ancestry. That you and a chimpanzee are distant cousins is verifiable a number of ways.”I will say, again, I don’t really understand his/her generalized attack on science…after all, the existence of God and evolution are compatible ideas.”Depends how literal your theology is of course, but yes evolution is completely compatible with the idea of a creator.”I also have no idea what his/her point is here. But I do share the sentiment of the author that Dawkins is…well….not the smartest (to put it nicely). Out of respect to atheists, I try not to talk about Dawkins (and yet he always comes up again and again) because I don’t think anyone gains from attacking a perspective’s weakest arguments. (Which many atheists do… much like your analogy of attacking one tenet of Mormonism to disprove Christianity. And yet, this is what happens all the time…let me cherry pick the weakest arguments for Christianity and argue against it…and thus I successfully argue against the religion as a whole.)”I think people attack the nuttiest versions of christianity because they are not uncommon, not because they’re trying to strawman christianity (though I’m sure some douchebag atheist is doing that somewhere). Young earth creationism wouldn’t be brought up all the time if YEC’s weren’t constantly trying to attack science and rewrite the curriculum.”Ok…this post (and comment) is super long. I want to respond to some other parts of the post but its 3:30am. Maybe I’ll respond to the rest later (…maybe…since I really only decided to write this to take my mind off the Laker game tonight.)”Alrighty, sorry the game blew.

@wizexel22 –@Ooglick – But the sun “stopping” in the sky doesn’t mean the earth would have to stop rotating instantaneouslyAnother thing that is completely missed is that “if” God exists and he really stopped the sun, then he is powerful enough to counter the effects that would have.@agnophilo – As for tagging people, I’ve never bothered to learn how to do that or tried to do that (lazy).You just put @ in front of their xanga name.

@musterion99 – In the blog I assume? And yeah if god is made of magic and can negate all logic and physics than any nonsense is plausible. And if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a wagon. If-then propositions rely on the “if” being demonstrably true, otherwise it’s just another twilight zone episode.

oh sorry, mrkwrth. i meant to copy and paste another item, but apparently it didnt take. it was this:>>>>>>Again, a position I do not take, nor do basically any atheists I have ever met. This would be like me saying that christianity is false because genetic testing proves native americans are not a lost tribe of israel as one branch of christianity (mormonism) maintains. While this certainly discredits the book of mormon this belief is hardly universal among christians and for me to portray it as such in an attempt to claim to have disproved all of christianity would be either ignorant or dishonest.

I can imagine that multiple dimensions can also be used in describing how to architect and manipulate a machine made up of many pockets of people.It doesn’t require a massive conspiracy. Just a well guarded small conspiracy involving a pyramid scheme and a mastery of double-speak, various applied mathematics, sciences and dramatics.

janeweah@ymail.comhellohow are you today i hope that every things is okwithyou as is my pleassure to contact you after viewingyour profile in love.really interest me in having communication with youifyou will have the desire with me so that we canget toknow each other better and see what happened infuture.i will be very happy if you can write me through myemail for easiest communication and to know allabouteach other here is my email (janeweah@ymail.com)i will be waiting tohear from you as i wish you all the best for yourday.yours new friend.jane